December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Forwarded mail...
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/2/97 11:36 AM, Mark Rogaski (wendigo(a)ne-wendigo.jabberwock.org) passed this wisdom: >An entity claiming to be Brian B. Riley wrote: > >:: ... nothing personal, but why is it people keep deluding >themselves : with the idea that they can shoot to wound. You cannot >know what a > >Because that's what all the cops on TV do. Most people see >non-lethal leg shots on TV all the time, so they assume that it's >probable. Even worse was "The A-Team" where hundreds of rounds were >fired, but no one ever got hurt. It was intended to reduce the >amount of violence on TV, but (in my opinion) only made gunplay >seem like a safe recreational activity. ... oh, I well know the answer to the question ... just waxing a little bit rhetorical ... I would seriously like to be there to look into they eyes of the yahoos who so bithely espouse dropping the hammer on a person right after they have watched the life drain from someones eyes the for very first time and see just how well they feel and how cocky and cavalier they still are. I wouldn't wish that burden on anyone. You just can have no idea unless you have been there. We send men off to war and then get all upset when so many come back with there brains on crooked ... the sheeple have no idea what they have done to these men (and now women) !!! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNDQS3sdZgC62U/gIEQLMfACdEDkNNtzbeccxGJGcuvuUkp810IoAoJZV 0HbGxZ0ogu2gzzGNIYhilxM+ =8vrU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For my PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "...error reading WinOS. (A)bort, (R)etry, (M)acintosh?"

1 0

Re: "Show me an example of terrorists using the Internet or crypto"
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Alex Le Heux wrote: >On 2 Oct 1997 00:24:27 +0200, Anonymous (sic) <anon(a)anon.efga.org> wrote: >>Alex Le Heux wrote: >>>Maybe you haven't noticed, but seen on 2000 year scales, the entire >>>world is constantly in a state of war. Europe isn't special in that >>>regard. >> >>I guess the conclusion, then, is that gun control is bad for the >>whole world, not just Europe. > >Eh, no. The conclusion would be that gun control or no gun control >does not affect the amount of war in the world at all. It certainly affect civilians! Most of the people who die in wars are not in armies. They are in villages, towns, and cities. Roughly 50 million people died in World War II. Perhaps 15 million (numbers approximate) were soldiers. Being unarmed is often unlucky. >>>And even if I had my AR15 then, it wouldn't help me a lot against >>>guided missiles and mortar fire. >> >>It's harder to police a hostile population which is well armed. > >True, but imho this will only result in more people getting killed. It can result in that, certainly. But somehow the next time your country is overrun, I doubt you would take your weapons (assuming you had any) and give them to the invader in the hope that this will increase the likelihood of your survival. >Any invader would not beat about the bush in the US, they'll make >very clear that they'll have nothing to do with citicens defending >their own homes. They'll just blow up the home from a distance. Ah, if they know which home to blow up they will. But they won't. (Unless they get their hands on the government gun registration records. Then they'll know which homes to go to.) >>>And anyway, "to defend yourself in a war" is not one of the usual >>>arguments against gun control. >> >>The popularity of an argument can be independent of its worth. >> >>"To defend yourself in general" is commonly used. War, oppressive >>government, and political turbulence are the most likely situations >>in which people need their weapons, even in the United States. > >Bullshit. People in the US rarely use their weapons against oppressive >governments or political turbulence. Sometimes we do. Study the Black Panthers. You raise a good point, though. I believe that widespread gun ownership acts as a dampener on conflict. People discover that they really can respect Group X enough to cut some kind of deal rather than herding them into concentration camps. The dynamic here is probably complicated. It isn't as simple as "Oh, we don't want to go after them, they have guns!" That underlies the process, but usually it translates into respect. (Look at how people feel about a "Mafia Don" versus "some greaseball working in a restaurant". Most people despise the man in the restaurant, even though when presented in neutral terms they claim to respect his behavior. What's the difference between these two people? It isn't that one is the nicer guy.) Should things progress to the point where armed troops are attempting to haul people out of their homes, the availability of firearms acts to drawn attention to what is happening. The people committing the acts are getting very strong signals that Something Is Wrong. The cost of collecting people increases dramatically when they are armed. In Berlin the assembly area for Jewish people was originally somewhere in the center of the city where other civilians could see what was going on. This caused discomfort and a certain amount of unrest amongst the population, so they moved the assembly area to the outskirts. But, there would be no denying the implications of automatic weapons fire all over the city. Would this guarantee survival? No, it would not. But, in my opinion, it would increase the odds. You can imagine it going wrong: "We won't be safe until we get rid of all those Jews and they damned assault rifles!" But, probably it would go the right way. >Most guns that are used against another person there are used to >commit crime or to defend against those armed criminals. - From day to day this may be true. But we are talking about those exceptional circumstances that arise every few decades, especially in countries where the peasants are not allowed to own weapons. And, you might want to take a look at the numbers. How many people have been murdered outright by their own governments in the 20th century? (This number excludes wars, which probably isn't reasonable.) It clocks in at well over 100 million. (Anybody have the actual number?) It takes a lot of bar shootings to get up to those kinds of numbers. >>I have to confess that I am surprised at the level of resentment >>among the members of various Europeans countries feel towards other >>European countries. For example, the Germans don't like the Dutch >>because when they visit they are treated badly by, among others, the >>police. The Dutch don't like the Germans because, well, they got to >>know them a little too well in the 1940s and they are nursing the >>grudge. >> >>With that sort of situation, anything can happen and it can happen >>quickly, even if things seem mellow right now. And these little >>resentments and jealousies are felt between far more groups in >>Europe than just between the Dutchies and the Germans. > >Excuse me? Have you ever even been in Europe? In the last 50 years I >mean? You are so full of shit here, it's incredible. I hereby invite >you to come over, and stay a while. I have a comfy couch. Thank you for your kind offer. If things go to hell here in the U.S. in the next couple of years I may take you up on it. Yes, I have been in Europe. I drew my conclusions from talking to and observing many Europeans. It wasn't what I expected, but it caused me to understand European history a little better. In the U.S., even when we are ragging on another ethnic group or another country, there is always this feeling in the air that is sort of naughty and low class to be doing it. In Europe, I did not sense this at all. (That's not all bad. It's not hypocritical.) People had all sorts of interesting views about people in other countries. I was particularly shocked by European anti-semitism. You can find people in the U.S. who will talk about "those New York Jew bankers" and the like, but I hadn't really seen hardcore anti-semitism before. By hardcore, I mean people who see all Jewish people as belonging to the same nationality, regardless of their passport. And, they don't think of this as a particularly remarkable thing. They see it as just one of those obvious facts that it would be foolish to deny. Jewish friends who travel in Europe have had repeated experiences where people want to treat them as Jews, rather than as Americans of the Jewish religion, which is what they are. >Anyone in Europe can go anywhere else, and be treated reasonably to >very well. We in Europe have put the crap of WWII behind us a long >time ago. Something that you haven't managed to do apparently. > >The Dutch are absolutely not 'nursing a grudge'. Come and visit. >You'll see. I did see. It was most interesting. I had a long conversation with a Dutch man once. He was very pleasant, civilized, and intelligent. Then he started telling me about the Germans and how pushy they were, how they always butt in line, etc. etc. I've heard similar things from other Dutch people. I personally witnessed a (very minor) incident. I have some German friends who were foully treated by the police in the Netherlands, too. These people are decent, polite, professional people. I have no doubt they did nothing whatsoever to provoke this treatment. (By "no doubt" I mean that we are talking about the most civilized people I have ever known.) But, they will never return to the Netherlands and I don't blame them. You might want to try a little experiment. Are you capable of appearing to be German? If you can get the style and the body language down, try coming into the Netherlands as a German visitor and see what kinds of response you get. If you can really fool people into thinking you are German you will probably learn something interesting about your country. (It might be hard to pull this off, though.) >>Let's also take a look at the Dutch performance during their >>occupation. While there certainly were many courageous Dutch people >>who helped refugees (at great personal risk, to say the least), and >>there were many courageous Dutch people who were in the resistance, >>there were also many Dutch people who did not perform so well. Not >>only were a large number of Jewish people turned in by Dutch >>informers, but there were even Dutch SS units. > >You have a nerve. You, coming from a country where people are still >regularly killed in the name of racism, tell me this?! Now, now, now. Don't get all excited. I said it was nice country, didn't I? I said some bad things about my own country, didn't I? The fact is, I think if you randomly selected people from the Netherlands, in general you would do pretty well. However, let's not deny what happened historically. Even nice appearing people do bad things. And they aren't always Nazis, either. As for racism, Europe is not without racism. It's hard to quantify it and hard to compare, but I suspect to a very great extent, America is seen as being racist because we discuss it, feel guilty about it, and try (sort of) to do something about it. (Never mind all of the ethnic groups in the U.S. that find they are able to live together harmoniously, even though their ancestors in Europe were continuously at each other's throats.) I've had two American friends who were beaten in Europe in racial incidents. One was white, one was black. One of them spent time in the hospital. Both crossed the racial line all the time in the U.S. without incident. >>I basically think well of the Netherlands and its people, but it is >>important to recognize that certain unpleasant characteristics exist >>in a large portion of the population of even a nice country. It is >>unlucky to pretend that these characteristics can never be expressed. > >We absolutely not pretending that this can never be expressed. In >fact, it's being expressed every day. We have our neo-nazi political >parties too. It's just that we here have learned our lesson, and very >few people actually listen to them. This may be true, but it's hard to tell. The climate is not conducive right now, either. What would happen if it suddenly became clear that anti-semitism would promote one's career? I think you would find them coming out of the woodwork again. >>What would have happened if the citizens of El Salvador were >>adequately armed? One thing you wouldn't see is a death squad going >>into a neighborhood to kick down some innocent's door and murder him >>or his family. At least, you wouldn't see it twice. > >Sure you would. It just would be that more bloody. The fact that >someone is armed has never stopped anyone from attacking. You just >make sure that your shot is the first and hits. What are people in death squads like? Believe it or not, they are not so different from ourselves. They also have fears. People do, in fact, act on their fear from time to time. If you think that while you are busy "shooting first" at some guy that maybe his neighbors won't mind blowing your head off for it, you are going to behave more cautiously. At the very least, it will cut down your nightly "take" by at least 70%. That's a big deal if you are part of the surviving group. >>People who are well armed are less likely to become pawns, victims, >>or slaves. That is desirable. > >They are just more likely to become dead. If you were faced with somebody you believed would enslave you, would you throw away your weapon in the hopes your life would be spared? I doubt this very much. >>Incidentally, the consistent support the U.S. government has shown >>for murderous or even genocidal governments is of great concern to >>those of us who live in the U.S. It is unlikely that these tactics >>won't be used here were there a serious political struggle and a >>disarmed population. > >- From over here it appears that the majority of Americans doesn't >really give a shit. Correct me if I'm wrong. It was hypothetical. I don't know if such a serious political struggle will arise in the near future. If most Americans don't give a damn, it will be very unlucky for troublemakers like the cypherpunks. In fact, though, most Americans do give a damn. Look at the great effort the government has to go through to get Americans into wars. It is a source of endless frustration to the elite that the population won't just hop into wars. Wilson and Roosevelt were both elected on peace platforms before getting us into the World Wars. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNDPwxpaWtjSmRH/5AQHswAf/WD4jWejWmUX4GAaEkWcJW5uhnEXjiLap G2lhu5E4/htFDe791IK6iZ1Pn9i7y8FnyzQMKwoA4sFlgFl4ZAZWCGktnLPBryOY Mqk2ckQGdYEa87vsFVSPZsVCJ51vJadqeAE/dZgWSbB+Vhck+2AcNypw5gCFHT3F N92K+KGvw/bKMS4oucomNaD1kpEsGcCBL95zcv/ZbgMKCz9LkdgHoS/GyzdssNCj BCZWhnUci5gFM1Pa1AAM7HNwkohFMfEsX1dpKr56NbziT1QwUXLHUzW8Qxf+OB2h 6p+xLwcWzFNzpyN6CzJHbxaB0S9PVIuy9zMDz3xMynaAy3S+2zmVaw== =tIFo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Stronghold
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> C2Net was wrong to censor the cypherpunks list in the guise of >> moderation. It was wrong to send threatening letters to people who >> claimed its products were weak. The whole moderation/censorship >> experiment was a terrible mistake. The actions taken by C2Net were >> completely unjustified. > >Where do people get these bizarre ideas? C2 didn't censor the list. A >guy who happened to work for C2 dropped some messages from one >list. The messages still went out on the unfiltered list. Had he >worked for Mc Donald's or the the NYC Sanitiation Department, would >you blame them for this as well? C2 employees informally mentioned libel suits to several cypherpunks, such as Tim May. Given that a good percentage of the company, perhaps a majority, was involved with this incident, it seems reasonable to judge the character of the company based on these actions. This incident changed my view of C2 considerably. Initially I held them in the highest regard. No longer. (Your employment by C2 should have been mentioned in your post. Many people on the list may not know about it. It is relevant.)

1 0

Re: Forwarded mail... (fwd)
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/2/97 2:35 AM, Jim Choate (ravage(a)ssz.com) passed this wisdom: >Remember: A gun is like a finger, just point it at what you want to >hit. > >I have met hundreds of great shots in my life, there are many >people forwhom this sort of behaviour would not be delusional. My >grandfather (who you'll hear more about in a minute) used to >delight us as small kids by lighting matches stuck in wood fence >posts with a .22 pistol from about 50 yds. My cousin from Louisiana >likes to shoot squirrels (if you can callit that) by passing the >bullet just in front of their nose, causes lung hemorraghes and >they just fall off the limb. Me, I always miss or blow theirteeny >little head off, it's apparently a game of 1/4 inches. I work with >anex-gomer (ie USMC) pilot who is quite phenomenal with his .357 >Desert Eagle,his groupings are just about an inch at 25 yds. None of these targets shoots back ... none of these targets pump up much adrenaline. I would never call myself a great shot (I did qualify expert at both rifle, M-14, "A" course and pistol, .45, 1911A1), and I can tell you of making several 25-35 yard snap shots in the jungle at moving shooting targets with the adrenaline driving my eyeballs through the roof ... but they were exactly that, pure reflex, center of body mass shots, under max pressure. I must in all fairness recall the other three to six shots each time that could have gone anywhere and probably did. The point is, "shooting to wound" is a dangerous delusion! *no one* can predict what a bullet will do when it enters the body. The rule I have always followed is don't take out your gun unless you are going to use it; don't use it unless you intend to kill. Makes decisions much easier on that basis. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNDQjysdZgC62U/gIEQL2pwCfYadqKN/3+wKF1BYC7MZxp8y3ud0An1L4 yXD3o+rsefpV8FO8MqD6OEtl =GHfD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "The Box said Win '95 or better - So I used a Macintosh!" -- Harold Herbert Tessman

1 0

Re: Quor's cipher
by Antonomasia 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Antonomasia <ant(a)notatla.demon.co.uk> wrote: > My attack takes a long chunk of known text and looks for repetition. > > ppppppppppppppp.11.pppppppppppppppppppppp > ccccccccccccccc.22.cccccccccccccccccccccc > > When a two neighbouring p-c pairs are the same you can test > whether they have the same value of a and b. > (That is a_n == a_n+1 and b_n == b+n+1, a != b usually.) > > This involves 16 inputs to each byte - very cheap. > What I really want next is to know "a". nobody(a)REPLAY.COM wrote: > Wouldn't this only happen (on average) in one out of every 65536 p-c > pairs? Yes (counting only those we test). > Since the state array is changed entirely with every 128 bytes > encrypted, 1 out of 2^16 doesn't seem to help much. This finding doesn't uncover a great deal, I agree, and what it does uncover is transient. 1 out of 2^16 is the number of pairs we test to find a point with the property we're looking for. The measures to compare this to are: message length several times 65k is fairly low cost of testing low benefit of test when passed also low :-( The changes are regular though, progressing through the array in two places. That's why I proposed testing neighbouring p-c pairs because you can be almost sure the relevant state (and it's which part of the state array is relevant that's uncertain) is the same for the two. In fact it would be nice to spot this: ppppppppppppppp.11.ppppppppppppppppppppp ccccccccccccccc.22.ccccccccccccccccccccc and see that a and b were the same, but the underlying state array changed in a relevant way. This would be indicated by a slightly less than total match, but still rare enough not to be a fluke. This could allow you to test possible values of a and b, and perhaps get 4 bits of a. But a and b don't persist over nearby bytes so I'm not clear what I'd do if I got them. What it would be nice to have next is a more damaging result emerge from this or some other observation so that we could determine more of the state without going to long range comparisons. This cypher is constructed differently from RC4 or fish - not as simple as WAKE but broadly comparable to Sapphire II. I think I'll enlist the help of a search engine. It's more than likely there other things waiting to be done to this. Quor's friend 'nobody' has actually put some crypto on the list -let's see what we can do with/to it. -- ############################################################## # Antonomasia ant(a)notatla.demon.co.uk # # See http://www.notatla.demon.co.uk/ # ##############################################################

2 1

Hansa.net's LOCI encourages development of e-commerce financial products and services
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Authentication-Warning: fma66.fma.com: majordomo set sender to owner-espam(a)lists.espace.net using -f X-Orig-From: "Bell, Lynwood" <hansa(a)ibm.net> X-e$pam-source: Various X-Sender: rah(a)pop.sneaker.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 13:44:21 -0400 To: espam(a)intertrader.com From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> Subject: Hansa.net's LOCI encourages development of e-commerce financial products and services Sender: owner-espam(a)lists.espace.net Precedence: bulk Reply-To: e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- This mail is brought to you by the e$pam mailing list --------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Bell, Lynwood" <hansa(a)ibm.net> Reply-To: hansa(a)ibm.net Organization: The Span-Hansa Group MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hettinga, Robert" <rah(a)shipwright.com> CC: "Cate, Vince" <vince(a)offshore.com.ai> Subject: Hansa.net's LOCI encourages development of e-commerce financial products and services Bob, I just announced this today for our public company. It might be appropriate to send it to either or both of your e$lab and FC98 mailing lists. I am not going to be able to accommodate hundreds of ventures but, given that some will have their own resources, money, etc. and only want the venue and the Bank to play with... it may be very interesting for all of us. Add this to the pot in whatever way you feel is appropriate. Cheers, Lyn ------------- Hansa.net Global Commerce, Inc. The Hansa Bank Bldg, Box 213, Landsome Road, The Valley, Anguilla, B.W.I., TV1 02P Phone (264) 497-3800, Fax 497-3801, email hansa(a)ibm.net PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Hansa.net and Hansa Bank join forces to encourage the development of e-commerce financial products and services to further expand Hansa.net's offerings of Location Optimized Commerce on the Internet (LOCI ). October 1, 1997 - Hansa.net Global Commerce, Inc. together with Hansa Bank & Trust Company Limited, both of Anguilla, British West Indies, and both members of the Span-Hansa Group, have agreed to jointly sponsor emerging Internet technologies which will enhance e-commerce through specifically tailored banking and financial applications. Lynwood S. Bell, Chairman of Hansa Bank, the controlling shareholder of Hansa.net a publicly traded company, said "Many excellent start-up companies lack a vehicle through which to perfect their product or service and to test their market acceptance. Most traditional domestic banks, encumbered with vast legacy systems and bureaucracies are reluctant to entertain these developers in live trials. The Hansa Bank, a British regulated private merchant and investment bank offering a full range of banking and brokerage services, has agreed to provide platforms for approved developers and to participate actively with them. All applications will be thoroughly screened, carefully controlled in their development and testing phases and will be completely isolated from the Bank's existing business. The Bank expects that some of these products may eventually result in leading edge products and services for the Bank." Hansa.net's role will be to assist in marketing any developed products to other banks and financial institutions. As well Hansa.net's existing LOCI clients are expected to benefit from the Bank's new or enhanced services. The first project, currently undergoing final review prior to being accepted by the Bank for testing, involves a Dutch developer of digital chequing. Plans are to demonstrate the product at the Financial Cryptograph 98 Conference, February 23-26, 1998 (see http:www.fc98.ai). Hansa Bank is one of the sponsors of this conference. Vince Cate, an Internet and cryptography expert recently featured in Forbes and Wired Magazines is participating with Hansa.net and Hansa Bank on this project. He said, "Many brilliant e-commerce ideas and products never reach the market because they have no incubator or no real life environment in which to test. Hansa.net and Hansa Bank provide both. As well, Anguilla is the perfect venue for such development in terms of sample size, global perspective, government support, and of course, the absence of any taxes. We fully expect that many of the products developed will end up in companies which are incorporated and reside here in Anguilla." About Hansa.net and the related Span-Hansa Group Hansa.net was founded in 1978 for computer systems development and software design. In 1985 the company went public, and subsequently expanded into software product development, marketing, and international trade technology. Hansa.net's primary role is to coordinate all of the elements of Location Optimized Commerce on the Internet (LOCI pronounced "low-see") for its clients. Hansa.net trades on the Vancouver Stock Exchange under the symbol "HAN" Both companies are part of the Span-Hansa Group comprised of ten organizations doing business in as many international locations. The Group's activities also include the financing of intellectual property, public stock offerings, acquisitions and mergers, and consulting on international business structures and trade. The Group maintains offices in Amsterdam, Barbados, and Anguilla, More information on the Span-Hansa Group and on other Span-Hansa strategic partners can be found on the Company's Internet home page: http://www.hansa.net. Lynwood S. Bell President Contact: Hansa.net - Lynwood Bell Vince Cate (264) 497-3800 hansa(a)ibm.net (264) 497-3255 vince(a)offshore.com.ai The Vancouver Stock Exchange has neither approved nor disapproved of this release. ====================================================================== LYNWOOD BELL - Span-Hansa Group, Hansa.net Global Commerce, Hansa Bank http://www.hansa.net ====================================================================== --------------------------------------------------------------------- Where people, networks and money come together: Consult Hyperion http://www.hyperion.co.uk info(a)hyperion.co.uk --------------------------------------------------------------------- Like e$? Help pay for it! See <http://www.shipwright.com/beg.html> Or, for e$/e$pam sponsorship, <mailto:rah@shipwright.com> --------------------------------------------------------------------- --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

1 0

Re: Stronghold
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lucky Green <shamrock(a)cypherpunks.to> writes: > On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Anonymous wrote: > > > > > C2Net was wrong to censor the cypherpunks list in the guise of moderation. > > It was wrong to send threatening letters to people who claimed its > > products were weak. The whole moderation/censorship experiment was a > > terrible mistake. The actions taken by C2Net were completely unjustified. > > Where do people get these bizarre ideas? C2 didn't censor the list. A guy > who happened to work for C2 dropped some messages from one list. The > messages still went out on the unfiltered list. Had he worked for Mc > Donald's or the the NYC Sanitiation Department, would you blame them for > this as well? Are you serious? The messages dropped were those which made (spurious) claims of weaknesses in C2 products. And later messages were dropped which attempted to discuss the dropping of earlier messages. The effect was that subscribers to the filtered list not only were not exposed to the messages critical of C2, they were prevented from knowing that a controversy existed about the filtering policies. There can be little doubt of the truth of these facts. One of us is remembering things wrongly. And yes, if the moderator were a McDonalds employee and he not only dropped messages which criticized McDonalds, but also filtered out later messages complaining about his actions, then I'd jolly well blame him.

1 0

Re: "Show me an example of terrorists using the Internet or crypto"
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Individuals need ways to defend themselves from the physical aggression of others. One of the reasons why people associate into societies, cities, and governments, is for the advantages of protection which can be achieved by large numbers of people acting in concert against their common enemy. They also insitute police forces and national defense agencies for the same reason: defense against physical aggression. Everyone on the planet has enemies, and anyone can become, or behave essentially as, an enemy - even someone's physically stronger kid brother who decides to hit them with a stone because of talking on the phone too long, even a former lover/husband who decides to kill their girlfriend/wife out of jealousy. Stalkers, thieves, rapists, drug addicts, perverts, etc., or just real animals from the animal kingdom, strike at the most inopportune times, when there are no officially sanctioned police forces around to be of help. But even if there were security guards constantly available at every street corner or planted inside one's house, the principle is the same: people are physially vulnerable and need defense from those who would take advantage of them, who would by weaken them and do physical harm. Guns are imperfect tools and humans are often imperfect fools in the use of them. Se la vie. Nevertheless, until the design of guns is improved, or until there is a better weapon, a better tool invented which can be used by individuals - independently of organized defense agencies - for their own use in regard of their own safety, guns will be manufactured, sold, and bought. And used. Killing people is a Bad Thing, but there exist people who don't prevent themselves from doing harmful, destructive things to others. At that particular point in time, when they are about to commit their crime against another, their potential victims are in the position of having to do something of practical use, and quickly. They could use karate, or ju-jitsu, or ninja stars, or call their dog to attack, or yell for help, or use their special pocket knife, or run, or use a gun. But they must do *something*, they must employ some means to prevent from being harmed, or from having their valuables taken, or else suffer the consequences of debility or death. Such is the position which an "out-of-control" person can put one in. It is possible to reason that such uncontrolled people need to have been raised better, could have received psychological assistance, should have been given an alternative view of life, might have been presented with better values and philosophies, etc. But you have to also consider how much intellectual support any individual must be provided - must they be programmed from birth with the proper structure of behavior, in order to have around oneself the convenience of living with "good people" who are not inimical to the society? (and would that be a society of real humans, of interest to other real humans) Is what a person makes of themselves ultimately a personal project, or is it to be pre-determined and continuously managed by others (parents, teachers, guidance counselors, psychologists, government clerks, policing agencies, government agencies, government leaders). When you relate to a person, will you be relating to someone with their own identity and personal ambitions, who make independent decisions about the actions they take, or only to a product of other people's influence? In any case, when someone behaves counter to your own wishes and seeks do with you what they will, or to take from you what they will, including your life, you must determine whether to allow it or how to prevent it - and if moved to prevent it, what will work to accomplish that. It might be necessary to kill that Bad Person (though not their whole family or relatives or neighborhood or race or country). .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Forwarded mail... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: Forwarded mail... (fwd) > Date: Thu, 2 Oct 97 18:52:18 -0400 > From: "Brian B. Riley" <brianbr(a)together.net> > None of these targets shoots back ... none of these targets pump up > much adrenaline. I have been shot at several times, some were hunting accidents and some were intentional. I did not freek out nor did my adrenalin rush impede my ability to think or to react. I did shoot back in each case. I am still alive and don't have a single bullet hole in my body so I must be doing something right. Don't know about them, I left the area in every case ASAP. > can tell you of making several 25-35 yard snap shots in the jungle at > moving shooting targets with the adrenaline driving my eyeballs > through the roof My house at 1am is not comparable to the jungle nor is the psychological situation comparable either. I am not confused about where or what is going on nor am I worried about making my tour. I am faced with the clear situation of somebody who wants to do me bodily harm. That doesn't scare me, it pisses me off to no end. When I get a rush I don't shake and such, I get very calm and methodical. It's only after the crisis has passed that I tend to sit down and shake like hell. > The point is, "shooting to wound" is a dangerous delusion! No shit. Let me make this clear. The ONLY way I would even consider shooting to wound was if the burglar was CLEARLY UNARMED, and the only reason that would happen was because in Texas shooting unarmed persons, even burglars, is illegal other than that you'd be dead. In any other situation my intent is to kill, kill, kill. As I said before, I would start with a center chest body shot and work up (which is natural since the aim point for successive shots will rise). > have always followed is don't take out your gun unless you are going > to use it; don't use it unless you intend to kill. Makes decisions > much easier on that basis. We agree on this point. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: "Show me an example of terrorists using the Internet or (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 18:22:26 -0700 > From: Blanc <blancw(a)cnw.com> > Subject: Re: "Show me an example of terrorists using the Internet or > crypto" > Stalkers, thieves, rapists, drug addicts, perverts, etc., or just real > animals from the animal kingdom, strike at the most inopportune times, when > there are no officially sanctioned police forces around to be of help. I have to object to the inclusion of drug addicts, they do what they do because the legislators and police want to stick their noses in other peoples business. If drug addicts resort to crime then society as a whole must garner some of the responsibility of putting them in that situation. In short the methods we use to control drug use in this country promote crime. This does not apply to others who would do this anyway and happen to take drugs, which means the drug laws are clearly unreasonable. > something of practical use, and quickly. They could use karate, or > ju-jitsu, or ninja stars, or call their dog to attack, or yell for help, or Isn't killing dogs a bad thing? I am shure my dog thinks so. Perhaps their is a lesson to be had in comparative psychology here. It's much easier to ask another entity to die for you because you consider them different and therefore of less value in the grand scheme of things. Human history is full of such instances. This also happens to be the rationale a lot if not all burglars use to justify their actions as well. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0